Totalitarian Soviet Communism as NBC Fashion Statement?

[Erock83]

Money expresses how much people value different things. The value of something is exactly that: how much it is valued by people. And this is what money prices express.

No-one has to calculate or plan money prices. The actions of people correct errors on the part of the sellers, punishing wrong guesses and rewarding correct predictions.

Well, I didn't quite understand what you meant with this last post.
I just hope you and others have been able to see how "true socialism" is an impossibility, as it causes the collapse of society. And to try it with this knowledge would constitute one of the greatest crimes imaginable.

You know Adam Smith is correct in a perfect world money would be an accurate and fair presentation of the value of things. However that is empirically proven not to work, people over value or under value things with creates disparity. I’m not saying that a moneyless society would be easy however with in such a society the chance for such a large and inexplicable disparity would be less likely and easier to control.
One Love

 

[Lifesaver]

But Erock, you don't seem to realize that money is a good like all others.
It was people going about their usual trading that began to use money.

That is, people realized that it was best for them to trade what they produced not directly for the precise things they wanted, as this was too hard. Instead, it was better to trade what they were offering for something that many people wanted, and then trade this intermediate good for the things they (the trader) wanted in the first place.

I have a basket of apples, and I want to get some cheese for it. Now, I will have a hard time finding someone who has cheese and who wants to trade it for a basket of apples. So I would do better to trade my apples for a thing that most people would want, such as one ox, and then in turn exchange this ox for the cheese I want.

In this case, cattle is the money. Historically, there have been many societies which used cattle as currency. But with time, most people realized the advantages of using metals instead of living animals. And later on, the advantage of using coined metal (in order to have no doubts about the quantity and weight of the metal) instead of simply irregular pieces of metal which had to be weighed at every transaction.

The introduction of paper fiat money by the government, and in this I agree with you, really does distort prices, as the government has the price of increasing this quantity at its own discretion for whatever goals it wants, and this makes prices vary wildly.

However, money in itself is a very good thing, which helps people transact and compare different things.

 

[SummerMadness]

Sort of like the confederate flag donned officially on state buildings, never mind individuals.

I couldn't agree with you more.

 

[Voegelin]

The Soviet Union can't be compared with Nazism.

Solzhenitsyn and Koestler compared them and agreed there was no moral and little practical difference between the two. Herman Goering and Willi Münzenberg served together in the Reichstag. Münzenberg smirked that National Socialism was "brown" on the outside and "red" on the inside. In the 1920s, German Communists and National Socialists worked together coordinating strikes to bring down the German Republic. Hitler had tapped out middle class interest in his party early on and up until 1931 was actively recruiting from the ranks of the communist party. The first use of poison gas on civilians was by the CHEKA in the Kiev region in the early 1920s. The Holodomor came before the Holocaust.The murder of Kirov in 1934 was used by Stalin the same way the Reichstag fire was used by Hitler. Check out the Hoover Institution's collection of Nazi posters. The same themes of class envy, concern for the working man, concern for women and children Russian international socialists used were used by German National socialists.

I see no moral difference between this NBC reporter who sports Soviet insigna and punks who wear symbols of the Third Reich.

 

[Ryal Kane]

Money makes perfect sense, a tranferable means of exchange for goods and services.

I think that society created a lot of problms by making money it's own entity. It is no longer merely a representation of trade for goods and services. It is it's own thing, something sought after, traded, altered and valued on nothing more than itself, which is inherantly hollow.

To paraphrase Ben Elton, a warehouse full of tomatoes can be worth half what it was in the morning and still have exactly the same number of tomatoes.

I know that things like the stockmarket have been neccesary for developing culture, but the system is far from perfect.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

Well I think the 12 to 20 million Africans that were brought or attempted to be brought (many died enroute) here to the colonies would think there is a moral equivalent.

we'll have to add then, to the confederate flag that is, all the flags of the African nations/tribes that sold said 12-20 million Africans (many who died enroute) as morally equivalent to nazism and communism.

 

[praying]

we'll have to add then, to the confederate flag that is, all the flags of the African nations/tribes that sold said 12-20 million Africans (many who died enroute) as morally equivalent to nazism and communism.

You could except nations was an artificial fractious concept imposed on African tribal states post colonization.

 

[Lifesaver]

Money makes perfect sense, a tranferable means of exchange for goods and services.

I think that society created a lot of problms by making money it's own entity. It is no longer merely a representation of trade for goods and services. It is it's own thing, something sought after, traded, altered and valued on nothing more than itself, which is inherantly hollow.

To paraphrase Ben Elton, a warehouse full of tomatoes can be worth half what it was in the morning and still have exactly the same number of tomatoes.

I know that things like the stockmarket have been neccesary for developing culture, but the system is far from perfect.

This means that the value of tomatoes has gone down.
In other words, people now think there are better things to do with money than buying tomatoes; the needs that tomatoes satisfy are no longer so urgent as they were in the beginning of the day.

It is based on different predictions of what will or won't be valued in the future that the current prices of things (such as a warehouse full of tomatoes) change.

The predictions may be right or wrong; perhaps dropping the price of the warehouse was a mistake. But it is not like this drop in price does not represent something real. It does represent something real: the change in people's valuation or the prediction of a future change in valuation.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

So basically, he's saying people like Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II and Jesus Christ were not worthy individuals to be admired, yeah? Oh yeah, he's a great judge of character.

"Give me liberty, or give me death."
-Patrick Henry, great American patriot.

Was Henry a bad man too, then?

 

[Yusuf Evans]

"Give me liberty, or give me death."
-Patrick Henry, great American patriot.

Was Henry a bad man too, then?

I think in their eyes, he would be considered since that helped create to them the most dangerous country the world has ever known.

 

[SummerMadness]

You could except nations was an artificial fractious concept imposed on African tribal states post colonization.

Moreover, the concept of slavery was different country to country, so saying that African slavery and American slavery were the same is just wrong. Slavery in the Americas actually evolved to something more brutal because it removed the ability for slaves to earn their freedom. But I always look at this point about "Africans selling other Africans into slavery" (as if they're one homogenous blob) as a dodge. It is always brought up to somehow deflect waht was done in America during its era of slavery.

I find it akin to blaming the guy that sold the gun being responsible for the murder committed by the person he sold the gun to.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

I think in their eyes, he would be considered since that helped create to them the most dangerous country the world has ever known.

That wasn't my question. I don't mean to take up for Che. I know little about him. But quotes on standing up and fighting against tyrrany and slavery are usually cheered when they are said by people on our side, or by pro-democracy capitalists. I'm wondering if you feel just as strongly that Patrick Henry and other great Americans were wrong in fighting the British and other enemies to our freedom throughout our nation's days.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

You could except nations was an artificial fractious concept imposed on African tribal states post colonization.

if tribes had flags it would be the same thing. unless no matter what it wasn't their fault they sold their fellow Africans into slavery?

Moreover, the concept of slavery was different country to country, so saying that African slavery and American slavery were the same is just wrong. Slavery in the Americas actually evolved to something more brutal because it removed the ability for slaves to earn their freedom.

it was indeed different. in the US of A the states didn't go to war with each other to collect prisoners to sell as slaves. male slaves weren't made eunuchs (afaik). and children weren't used for prostitution (although that may be a more recent form of African slave trade)

But I always look at this point about "Africans selling other Africans into slavery" (as if they're one homogenous blob) as a dodge. It is always brought up to somehow deflect waht was done in America during its era of slavery.

I find it akin to blaming the guy that sold the gun being responsible for the murder committed by the person he sold the gun to.

the gun and the slave are being compared? ouch. slaves are people made in the image of God, not objects

no one is dodging what was done in America. people are dodging what was done in Africa and continues to be done in Africa today while it's been outlawed in the US.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

That wasn't my question. I don't mean to take up for Che. I know little about him. But quotes on standing up and fighting against tyrrany and slavery are usually cheered when they are said by people on our side, or by pro-democracy capitalists. I'm wondering if you feel just as strongly that Patrick Henry and other great Americans were wrong in fighting the British and other enemies to our freedom throughout our nation's days.

there's still a difference between how men like Patrick Henry fought (against soldiers) and how Che fought (against the entire system which included civilians) so to compare the two is disingenuous. it's like folks that compare America, who spent tons of cash creating weapons to strike just the tanks Saddam parked in civilian areas, to the jihadists who have no compunction against beheading civilians.

 

[praying]

if tribes had flags it would be the same thing. unless no matter what it wasn't their fault they sold their fellow Africans into slavery?

I didn't say or imply that but like summermaddness pointed out slavery in tribal Africa was not what slavery was in the New World.

it was indeed different. in the US of A the states didn't go to war with each other to collect prisoners to sell as slaves. male slaves weren't made eunuchs (afaik). and children weren't used for prostitution (although that may be a more recent form of African slave trade)

It was not by any means a walk in the park to be a slave in America and child prostitution come on that existed you know and I know it. The states had no reason to war with each over Africans the law of the land allowed them to be traded freely.

 

[Fineous_Reese]

I didn't say or imply that but like summermaddness pointed out slavery in tribal Africa was not what slavery was in the New World.

not at all alike. it's illegal here and still going on there. for all the evilness that it was, it was ended here. well, except for those kept down with welfare and the ideology that fathers aren't needed. folks under soviet communism were basically slaves to the state as well.

It was not by any means a walk in the park to be a slave in America and child prostitution come on that existed you know and I know it. The states had no reason to war with each over Africans the law of the land allowed them to be traded freely.

they could be traded in Africa too but that wasn't the point, in Africa they were warring partly to get *more* slaves. it would be like slave owners in Virginia attacking North Carolina and taking both the slaves and the slave owners, making them slaves then selling them to Maryland.

 

[Voegelin]

Cuba is the most racist state in the western hemisphere. Look at Castro's entourage. Nearly all white. Yet blacks make up over 50% of the population of Cuba. During the Cold War, Castro used blacks as cannon fodder in Angola in return for oil from the Soviet Union.

Yet here we have an NBC "journalist" wearing a symbol of that regime. So much for liberal media sensitivity to racism.

 

[SummerMadness]

the gun and the slave are being compared? ouch. slaves are people made in the image of God, not objects

no one is dodging what was done in America. people are dodging what was done in Africa and continues to be done in Africa today while it's been outlawed in the US.

And of course the dodge here is to talk about problems in Africa now and ignoring what went on in America...

I got it.

Here's what I don't understand, when blacks call themselves African Americans, people come out of the woodwork saying, "You have no connection to Africa, how can you call yourselves that? How come you don't say you're just American." (tack on other whining)? As soon as blacks talk about issues with racism in America, past and present, the first thing people pull up, "Well what about Africa, how come you're not going to fix the problems over there? You have a kinship with those people."

So what does African slavery have to do with people waving their Confederate emblems (as this topic is about a guy wearing a hammer and sickle shirt)?

 

[Patzak]

Yes, it's quite interesting that the German swastika is nowadays almost universally reviled (although I've seen its hindu (?) variation used in neutral context) while the hammer and sickle aren't. Apparently many people consider the communist symbols to represent not only (or maybe not at all) the mass murders of the communist regimes but also the dignity of the proletariat, universal equality, etc..

It seems that symbols tend to retain their original meanings and lose the connotations they may have gained later on (except again for the swastika, probably due to the original meaning being competely unrelated to the subsequent one and unknown to the general population (including myself unfortunatelly; I think it's a symbol of the sun)). I guess we can see the same thing happening with the cross - Christians understand it as a symbol of Christ's sacrifice without being too concerned about the subsequent history of Christianity. Nobody is claiming that the cross is a symbol of oppression despite the fact that people claiming the cross as their symbol were responsible for a lot of deaths during the course of history.

Almost any symbol that's old enough to have gained some historical connotations can be construed as being a symbol of oppression - including the American flag, the cross, etc. So I don't see a point in getting indignant over a specific one; I doubt that anybody displaying the hammer and sickle is doing so in order to show their support for Stalin's gulags or Mao's cultural revolution; instead, they're probably doing it to show their support for the working class (or just a general idealistic conception of equality).

I guess we could judge the acceptability of different symbols by counting the deaths that can be associated with each one, which would probably place the hammer and sickle at the top - followed by the swastika, symbols of major religions and a score of national flags (with Che trailing far far behind). But we don't want to be too politically correct, do we?

 

[Fineous_Reese]

I got it.

do you? i said no one is ignoring what America did but folks do seem to be ignoring Africa's share in getting the slaves to America. i'd like to hear folks agree out loud that the Africans who sold the slaves are just as bad as those who bought them.

Here's what I don't understand, when blacks call themselves African Americans, people come out of the woodwork saying, "You have no connection to Africa, how can you call yourselves that? How come you don't say you're just American." (tack on other whining)? As soon as blacks talk about issues with racism in America, past and present, the first thing people pull up, "Well what about Africa, how come you're not going to fix the problems over there? You have a kinship with those people."

the only current issue in Africa i've mentioned is that child prositution is going on and while that is something that every person of every skin tone should be working to end it's still the only current issue mentioned in this side topic. otherwise the discussion has centered around the slaves in America being sold by fellow Africans. back in the past. when it happened. not current day.

hope that's clearer

So what does African slavery have to do with people waving their Confederate emblems (as this topic is about a guy wearing a hammer and sickle shirt)?

that's a great question! seems lately that racism seems to jump into all kinds of topics it has nothing to do with. weird eh?